COUNCIL CONTINUES INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH EXPERTS ON INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS, EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS AND INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES
The Human Rights Council this morning continued its interactive dialogue with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, who presented their reports to the Council on 2 June.
Sri Lanka, speaking as a concerned country on the report of Walter Kalin, the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, said that Sri Lanka felt that some clarification of facts might be useful. Drawing attention to some recent developments in the country, he said that the situation in Sri Lanka was improving. Elections had been held for the first time in 20 years in the Eastern Province, which was the scene of most of the displacements with which the Representative was concerned. The success of the recent democratisation process had much to do with the willingness of a wing of the LTTE to abandon terrorism and to engage in political activity. Assistance was being provided to resettling persons with the help of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees.
The Philippines, speaking as a concerned country on the report of Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, expressed deep disappointment over the outcome of the visit. The Philippines believed that the report and recommendations of Professor Alston were inaccurate, highly selective and biased. The Philippines, on its own initiative, had taken resolute and concrete steps to address allegations of extrajudicial killings. The Government concluded that the allegations of extrajudicial killings had been exaggerated for political purposes. The extensive End Notes in Appendix C had convinced the Government that Mr. Alston’s report was not impartial in the conduct of his mission and the implementation of his mandate.
Brazil, speaking as a concerned country, said that many of the shortcomings cited in the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions had been recognized by Brazil. In responding to the report, Brazil highlighted two important initiatives. The first was the national programme of public security and citizenship. It included capacity building and improving the public security sector, with improving penitentiaries and reducing police corruption among other tactics. Brazil also offered housing opportunities for police officers to improve standards of living. The second initiative was the improvement of a unified system of public security to link local, provincial, and federal authorities.
Afghanistan, speaking as a concerned country on the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that Afghanistan wished to see the final report before giving their comments. Not all views contained in the preliminary report were shared. Afghanistan fully intended to respect human rights. The country was going through a difficult period; they were engaged in a fight against terrorism and were grieving deeply over the death of their citizens. Protection of the life of Afghanistan’s citizens was important to the Government. The Government attached great importance to reforms concerning police, justice, and the fight against corruption. The President had taken recent decisions to put in place mechanisms to carry out these reforms.
The presentations of the three Experts can be found in press release HRC/08/55 of 2 June.
During the interactive dialogue, delegations said that commissions of inquiry must be strong and transparent and must follow a minimum level of independent inquiry. Concerning capital punishment, this was not prohibited by any international norms and fell unequivocally within the jurisdiction of a State. It did not contradict any of the universally recognized human rights. In accordance with the United Nations Charter, States had the sovereign right to determine their own social and political system. On internally displaced persons, these persons continued to be among the most vulnerable. Yet, too often their plight was not well understood. The Representative’s efforts to promote and disseminate the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were welcomed. Also, Mr. Alston was required to provide clarification as to the meaning of his statement that vacuum existed merely by the refusal of sovereign States to allow for an official visit by mandate holders. Further, it was felt that he was not entitled to give such comments. The Code of Conduct of the Special Procedures clearly stated that visits should be carried out with the consent of States.
Speaking in the interactive dialogue were the delegations of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Mexico, Indonesia, Qatar, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Egypt, the Russian Federation, the Netherlands, Canada, China, Austria, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Sudan, Singapore, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Sri Lanka, Uruguay, Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Iraq, Japan, Ireland, Armenia, Cuba, the Maldives, Nigeria, Brazil, the Philippines, the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, Algeria and Ecuador.
Also speaking were representatives of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines; Asian Legal Resource Centre; Pax Romana; North-South XXI; Interfaith International; Colombian Commission of Jurists; Society for Threatened Peoples; Amnesty International; and France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand.
The Council is scheduled to conclude its interactive dialogue when it next meets this afternoon at 3 p.m., and to hear concluding remarks by the three Experts, before listening to the presentation of reports by the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations.
Statements by Concerned Countries
RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka), speaking as a concerned country on the report of Walter Kalin, the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, said that Sri Lanka felt that some clarification of facts might be useful. Drawing attention to some recent developments in the country, he said that the situation in Sri Lanka was improving. Elections had been held for the first time in 20 years in the Eastern Province, which was the scene of most of the displacements with which the Representative was concerned. The success of the recent democratisation process had much to do with the willingness of a wing of the LTTE to abandon terrorism and to engage in political activity. The Special Representative in his report was drawing attention to continuing tensions because of fear of violence, but Sri Lanka felt that they were light years away from the problems of a year ago. Assistance was being provided to resettling persons with the help of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. It was appreciated that the Special Representative had noted that the Government was acting on the need to find durable solutions for the long term displaced, since the LTTE had tried to cleanse the North of the country from the Muslim population. Dealing with these problems was even more difficult than the problems of the recently displaced.
The Government had already prepared a draft that would clarify policy with regard to the Special Representative’s recommendations. A bill of protection and an Ombudsman for displaced persons was being planned. Further, progress had been made in all the other areas where the Special Representative had made recommendations. Sri Lanka urged the international community to support its efforts to eradicate the terrorism that inhibited ready fulfilment of the ideals the Representative had enunciated and which Sri Lanka shared.
ERLINDA F. BASILIO (Philippines), speaking as a concerned country, expressed thanks to Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, who in his report acknowledged the full cooperation extended by the Philippine Government on his mission. The Philippines expressed deep disappointment over the outcome of the visit. The Government also regretted the final report as it did not take into account the comments to the draft report it had submitted to the Special Rapporteur. The Philippines believed that the report and recommendations of Professor Alston were inaccurate, highly selective and biased. The Philippines, on its own initiative, had taken resolute and concrete steps to address allegations of extrajudicial killings. The Government concluded that the allegations of extrajudicial killings had been exaggerated for political purposes. Such a case was noted with the 836 alleged cases listed by the group Karapatan as of May 2007; only 14 per cent were found to be probable extrajudicial killings. In that case, 28 killings were attributed to the communist rebels and only 13 to military or paramilitary elements.
The Philippines had carefully studied Professor Alston’s report. The extensive End Notes in Appendix C had convinced the Government that his report was not impartial in the conduct of his mission and the implementation of his mandate. Specifically the Philippines believed that Professor Alston was unduly selective, readily accepting information from specific leftist groups while easily dismissing information provided not only by Government agencies but also from other human rights defenders and government critics who did not fall under the persuasion of his favoured group—the Communist Party of the Philippines, New People’s Army, National Democratic Front (CPP/NPA/NDF). It was noted that Professor Alston’s partiality, selectivity and double standards were fully demonstrated in End Note no. 46 of his report. The Government found it convenient that Professor Alston did not provide details of the End Note no. 46 when he had been profuse elsewhere in describing the activities of his favoured group. The Government remained concerned on a number of recommendations described in Professor Alston’s report.
MARCIA MARIA ADORNO C. RAMOS (Brazil), speaking as a concerned country, thanked the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Phillip Alston. It was a great honour for Brazil to receive him. The Special Rapporteur visited three cities that had security challenges. Many of the short comings cited in the Special Rapporteur’s report had been recognized by Brazil which was aware that it must improve salaries for police and improve training and opportunities for prosecutors and judges. In responding to the report, Brazil wished to highlight two important initiatives. The first was the national programme of public security and citizenship. It included capacity building and improving the public security sector, with improving penitentiaries and reducing police corruption among other tactics. Means included scholarships for police to attend human rights training. Brazil also offered housing opportunities for police officers to improve standards of living. These initiatives would pave way to high standards. Further information would be sent to the Special Rapporteur. Brazil had been invited by some countries to brief them on its programmes. The second initiative was the improvement of a unified system of public security to link local, provincial, and federal authorities. Brazil thanked the Special Rapporteur for the open and frank dialogue and for recognizing that despite the many problems, there were many forces for good.
NANGUYALAI TARZI (Afghanistan), speaking as a concerned country on the report of Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that on his visit to Afghanistan, Mr. Alston had had an opportunity to meet with several officials and ministers. These contacts indicated and confirmed the Government’s determination to promote human rights in their country. On the arbitrary and summary executions in Afghanistan cited by the Special Rapporteur in his report, they wished to see the final report before giving their comments. Not all views contained in the preliminary report were shared. Afghanistan fully intended to respect human rights. All the major Conventions had been ratified by the Government. The country was going through a difficult period; they were engaged in a fight against terrorism and were grieving deeply over the death of their citizens. Protection of the life of Afghanistan’s citizens was important to the Government. The Government attached great importance to reforms concerning police, justice, and the fight against corruption. The President had taken recent decisions to put in place mechanisms to carry out these reforms. Twenty-eight years of war, including five under the ruling of the Taliban, and terrorism had affected the population that had been living under complete denial of the most basic rights. However, the Taliban were only referred to in two paragraphs of the report. The Special Rapporteur was asking to bring the Taliban into a dialogue in order for them to respect human rights. But one should remember that against all appeals by the international community and the United Nations they had destroyed the Buddha statutes. The international community was asked to help Afghanistan develop its country and to establish democracy and human rights.
Interactive Dialogue on Reports on Internally Displaced Persons, Extrajudicial and Summary Executions and Independence of Lawyers and Judges
MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference appreciated the thematic work carried out by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in highlighting the themes of national commissions on inquiry, right to seek pardon or commutation of death sentence and the need for States to avoid delegation of authority in managing prisons.
Guiding principles and the enumeration of problems encountered in relation to commissions of inquiry were quite thorough and exhaustive. A commission of inquiry must be strong and transparent and must follow a minimum level of independent inquiry. The Organization of the Islamic Conference agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s views that minimum standards of investigation were needed to enable a commission to genuinely investigate reported cases. The procedural guarantees on article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be followed. The Organization of the Islamic Conference agreed that country visits were an important part of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. Many countries had proceeded with plans for the Special Rapporteur’s visit.
Regarding the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation on Darfur, the Organization of the Islamic Conference agreed that the work of the Special Rapporteur should be limited to his mandate, i.e. reporting on situations of extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions. It would be advisable to refrain from commenting on decisions by the Council which had been taken by consensus.
JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) thanked the three Experts. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers illustrated perfectly the inefficacy of the death penalty. Mexico called on States which had not yet done so to enact a moratorium on capital punishment, before totally abolishing it. All Special Procedures related to the death penalty should help States to respect their international obligations. Also, what measures could the Council take to impact on States the dangers of states of emergency on human rights.
GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia) said that on the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, Indonesia was of the view that the situation of internally displaced persons was very much a country-specific one. It also depended if it was the result of natural disasters or through internal conflicts. On the report on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur had developed a clearly disquieting perspective on the situation in a number of countries which did not necessarily present an equitable picture of the situation on the ground. Further, quoting the obsolete report of a previous Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions was seen as over-simplistic and misleading since it failed to reflect the dynamics and the current situation in Indonesia. Mandate holders were expected to fulfil their mandate while respecting certain principles. Concerning the capital punishment, this was not prohibited by any international norms and fell unequivocally within the jurisdiction of a State. Indonesia carried it out exclusively for specific and often heinous crimes. The Special Rapporteur was required to provide clarification as to the meaning of his statement that vacuum existed merely by the refusal of sovereign States to allow for an official visit by mandate holders. This accusation was not true, and Indonesia had never refused outright such a request by a mandate holder. A visit by a Special Rapporteur should be efficient and well arranged.
FAISAL ABDULLA AL-HENZAB (Qatar), speaking on the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that Qatar agreed with the recommendations made by Philip Alston concerning the documents on internally displaced persons. Professor Alston had shed light on the ongoing conflicts, including most recently the food crisis. On the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, Qatar believed that the international community had left the issue of many internally displaced people without focus. The Government of Qatar was deeply concerned about this phenomenon. The needs of internally displaced persons should be addressed and they should be alleviated from their suffering, which could only be met by the international community. With the general principles related to the Representative’s mandate and during the 2005 conference, Heads of State and Government had accepted the principles to provide assistance to these peoples. Walter Kalin had underlined that assistance was needed to promote the human rights of internally displaced persons.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) thanked the three Experts for their presentations. Bangladesh questioned the comment in the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that some countries were not forthcoming when he requested visits which created a vacuum. This was not helpful in building the relationship between the Special Rapporteur and Governments. A delay in responding to requests for a visit may be caused by many reasons. Countries may have more pressing issues and priorities. Also, if the Special Rapporteur had preconceived views and conclusions, then cooperation would not be forth coming. Bangladesh had received several Special Rapporteurs in the past and would receive them in the future, taking into account the country’s capacity at the time of the request. Their visits and reports had to be meaningful and objective. Bangladesh would cooperate with all Special Rapporteurs in the future with this in mind.
MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said Pakistan had received five communications from the Special Rapporteur, among them two related to the death sentence, two to legal orders to control specific law and order situations and one regarding an anti-terror operation. Pakistan had responded to two of them in detail. The Special Rapporteur had mentioned only one of the answers. Pakistan hoped that this inaccuracy would be corrected. Further, the death penalty was an issue of the criminal justice system. It did not contradict any of the universally recognized human rights. In accordance with the United Nations Charter, States had the sovereign right to determine their own social and political system. Pakistan recognised the death penalty under a specific number of serious crimes. This penalty was imposed only when a court of law gave a final verdict, after due process of law. Pakistan attached supreme importance to the supremacy of the rule of law.
RAJIV KUMAR CHANDER (India), speaking on the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that in paragraph 11 of his report, Philip Alston listed names of countries which had failed to respond affirmatively to the request for a visit. The Special Rapporteur’s conclusions and recommendations to the Council was that it was a serious concern for States listed to have the ability to refuse his request for a visit, when serious concerns over extrajudicial executions had been identified. India said that this was a sweeping conclusion made without any basis. It did not take into account the effective institutional mechanisms that India already had in place to address violations of human rights, including extrajudicial executions. The approach of the Special Rapporteur was not in line with the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures. India constructively engaged with the United Nations human rights machinery. India would continue to receive Special Rapporteurs and other Special Procedures mechanisms of the Human Rights Council taking into account their capacity, the priority areas of the country as well as the need for adequate preparation for such visits.
EVA TOMIC (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the three Experts for their reports. The European Union asked the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to further explain and expound upon the major gap in the rights of detainees. The right to seek pardon was clearly stated in international law. The Special Rapporteur said in his report that this right was becoming increasingly difficult to secure. Had these challenges increased more in recent years? In prisons run by prisoners, had he encountered problems with children, gays, lesbians and transgender in particular? The European Union noted that the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons had emphasized the need for economic potential and opportunities and asked for elaboration on the possible monitoring mechanisms and best practices. After reading the addendum to the report based on missions, the European Union said it would appreciate learning further about the measures to be adopted that the United Nations could offer to governments to assist and protect internally displaced persons. The European Union welcomed the excellent report by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. How could interference be eliminated and how could it be assured that human rights violations committed by the military were tried in civil courts?
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt) welcomed the efforts of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons in collaborating with the African Union. Could he shed more light on the implication of natural disasters in his future work? On the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, concerning arbitrary detentions, Egypt suggested that a specific Working Group on detention could replace the Working Group on arbitrary detentions. Also, it would be appreciated to hear the position of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on brutal killings carried out by private security agencies. These agencies were involved in many conflicts around the world and their actions went unpunished.
Egypt regretted that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers was only available in Spanish, which prevented many delegations from reading it. Reports should be available in all the official languages of the United Nations. Further, Egypt was of the view that having three Special Rapporteurs presenting their reports at the same time sometimes led the discussions in different directions. There was a downside to the time-saving aspect of this practice, as many Special Rapporteurs were often not able to stay for the whole interactive dialogue.
MARINA VIKTOROVA (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation had carefully studied the reports presented by the three Experts. Timely reports had to be available in all the official languages of the United Nations. Specifically, there had been a lack of documents in the Russian, English and French languages.
The Russian Federation said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions had provided a range of problems with respect to private custody of prisons. The Russian Federation did not support establishing a new mandate on rights of detainees. The increase in monitoring procedures would not alleviate the problems but would duplicate the work.
On the proposal of the Representative of the Secretary-General on creating a monitoring mechanism to ensure the respect for the rights of internally displaced persons, the Russian Federation wanted some clarifications on this issue. The Russian Federation also wanted to know how the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers would deal with the issue of guaranteeing a judicial process in the languages of ethnic minorities.
ROBERT-JAN SIEBEN (Netherlands) asked questions on the mission of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2007. The Netherlands believed that the independence of the judiciary was essential. Given that Mr. Despouy had said that the judiciary in the Democratic Republic of the Congo had come under the influence of the Government, the Netherlands asked if this was the main cause of the lack of independence of the judiciary. Had there been any improvement in the situation? Would the law on the organization of the High Council of the Judiciary be passed soon? What other measures could the Government take to reduce sexual violence, other than educating judges? Did the Special Rapporteur foresee cooperation between himself and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women in monitoring the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? What efforts had been made on his recommendation for a law to adopt the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to ensure the transfer of some trials from military tribunals to civilian courts?
SUE BUTCHART (Canada) expressed Canada’s support for the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons. These persons continued to be among the most vulnerable. Yet, too often their plight was not well understood. The Representative’s efforts to promote and disseminate the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were welcomed. He was encouraged to redouble his efforts to secure the universal recognition and implementation of this important normative framework. His ongoing role in mainstreaming internally displaced persons’ issues with key United Nations partners was welcomed. His concerns with regard to safe and unhindered access of humanitarian workers to internally displaced persons were shared. On the report on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Canada had studied the Special Rapporteur’s report on his mission to the Philippines with interest. His recommendations were supported and the Philippines was urged to promptly implement them. Canada remained concerned by the lack of prosecution and conviction of those committing extrajudicial killings and the resulting culture of impunity.
QIAN BO (China) thanked the three Experts on internally displaced persons, extrajudicial and summary executions and on the independence of judges and lawyers. China appreciated the dialogue on the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons. China had been trying to improve and enhance the solutions to problems faced by internally displaced persons. In addition to national efforts to help internally displaced persons, China attached importance to help from the international community in assisting to tackle this problem. China had started reconstruction plans after the earthquake.
China welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and hoped he would continue to work in his objective manner. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, China had implemented a new law on the judiciary, which had come into force. The new law presented guarantees for lawyers and ensured the legal interests of clients were protected. China encouraged the Special Rapporteur to continue dialogue with China on this matter and with a continued spirit of openness and cooperation.
MICHAEL SCHOISWOHL (Austria) thanked the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons for his report. This was a complex problem that existed in many parts of the world and Austria encouraged Dr. Kalin to continue his work and the implementation of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Austria asked him to elaborate further on the challenges arising from displacement in the context of peace-making and peace-building and the measures which were necessary to address them. Austria asked for further information on the nature of a mechanism for the restitution of property to internally displaced persons and shared best practices in this regard. Finally Austria asked for further explanations on how challenges related to persons displaced by natural disasters and climate change could be addressed within existing human rights frameworks and about the difficulties likely to arise.
SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) thanked the three experts for their reports. Concerning the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Argentina noted that access to justice was important. It was particularly important to take into account the particular situation of vulnerable groups. The planned United Nations database on good practices was welcomed. Argentina asked how they would work. Appropriate training of judges was also seen as important. Concerning the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, he had highlighted important aspects with regard to inquiry commissions.
ALMA VIVIANA PEREZ GOMEZ (Colombia) welcomed the reports of the three Experts. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in paragraph 42, he addressed the question of the inadequate protection of witnesses. The Government of Colombia was interested in updating the information in the report which dated back to 1989. In the case of Lawachela, Colombia recognized its responsibility in the trial. The Government’s recognition was commended by the international court on May 11 2007. In addition Colombia stated that the General Prosecutor had convicted three additional people involved in the crime to be added to the original eight convictions passed down earlier. An investigation had started concerning four others. Colombia agreed strongly with the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur which were important for Colombia and especially its efforts to combat impunity.
Colombia said that the issue of extrajudicial executions was important to the nation. The Government was paying close attention to these issues in the national territory. The human rights office in Colombia would be sending an expanded explanation in three days to further provide details on this subject.
CARLOS PORTALES (Chile) thanked the three Experts for their reports. Speaking on the report by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Chile said that the report showed that commissions of inquiry were vital for the fight against impunity. Chile agreed with the report’s recommendation that commissions of inquiry should not act as a method to distract the international community. Chile appreciated the section on the right to ask for a pardon and commute a penalty and stated that this right was essential. Chile also appreciated the paragraph on prisoners running prisons. Chile found the recommendation that a Special Rapporteur on the rights of detainees be appointed very interesting. Chile congratulated Mr. Despouy for his report and agreed with him that there could be no sustainable democracy without justice. Access to justice should not be thought of as needed upon entry into a court, but should be through the entire process. Citizens must have confidence in the system.
OMER DAHAB FADOL MOHAMED (Sudan) said that a persisting problem in the Human Rights Council was the use of subjectivity when looking at different situations around the world. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions had presented a 30-page-long report; logically the conclusions had to be reflective of what was elaborated in the report. However this had failed to materialize. In his conclusions, the Special Rapporteur had called for the reversal of a resolution that had been adopted in the present Council and had called for the revival of the Expert Group on Darfur. Further, he was short on pinpointing those who were most responsible for the situation. Armed groups had hijacked humanitarian assistance vehicles. They had used extrajudicial killings against civilians, but the Special Rapporteur failed to highlight these facts in his report. Compliance with the Code of Conduct of mandate holders had to be shown. Sudan hoped that the practice of demonizing would come to an end. Also, Sudan noted that the African Union United Nations hybrid force was late in entering into force because the international community was late in providing financial support.
TAN YORK CHOR (Singapore) said that Singapore categorically rejected the assertions of the Special Rapporteur on extrajucidial, summary or arbitrary executions that there were serious concerns over extrajudicial executions in Singapore. There were no extrajudicial executions in Singapore. The death penalty was provided for in Singapore as part of the judicial process. Singapore recognized that the death penalty was a severe penalty which should only be imposed for the most serious crimes. The integrity and transparency of Singapore’s legal system were well-known and highly rated by many international surveys.
This was not the first time that Singapore had been subject of a misleading portrayal on the part of this Special Rapporteur on events concerning the death penalty. The Government concluded that the Special Rapporteur’s request to visit Singapore would serve no meaningful purpose based on previous exchanges. Mr. Alston provided an interesting illustration of how he had extrapolated his mandate to cover and report on prisons and his recommendation that a Special Rapporteur be appointed on the rights of detainees. In doing so he had detracted attention and resources from addressing the real cases of extra-judicial, arbitrary or summary executions which were the core raison d’etre for his appointment.
MICHAEL MCBRYDE (New Zealand), speaking also on behalf of Australia, thanked all three Experts for their reports. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, New Zealand and Australia were concerned by the lack of response by the interim Government of Fiji to respond to the United Nations’ repeated requests to engage. The domestic situation in Fiji was a concern for many in the international community. New Zealand and Australia renewed the call to the interim Government of Fiji to respond positively to the ongoing efforts by the international community to engage. They noted comments by Fiji’s interim Government that it would be extending an invitation to the Special Rapporteur and asked if he had any further information. They
asked what more the international community could do to encourage the visit.
BEATE STIRO (Norway), speaking on the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, said the report was a stark reminder that the number of internally displaced persons were not diminishing, nor were its root causes. This year marked the tenth anniversary of the Guiding Principles. It would be appreciated if the Special Rapporteur could share his ideas on how the Guiding Principles might be implemented more effectively. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, could the Special Rapporteur elaborate on the possible ways through which the international community could better monitor the independence and effectiveness of national commissions of inquiry? Norway agreed that States were responsible for the protection of the human rights of their detainees.
ALEXANDRA RUPPEN (Switzerland) fully supported the mandates and reports presented by the three
Experts. Switzerland congratulated the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons on his extensive and detailed report. Switzerland reiterated its support and contribution to the activities of the Representative, especially concerning the promotion and protection of human rights in cases of natural disasters, as well as in the adoption of durable solutions for the problems of millions of internally displaced persons. There was an interdependence between the consolidation of peace and taking into count the needs of internally displaced persons. The lack of a resolution of the cause of displacement could endanger stability, which in its turn could threaten restoration of peace.
ISABEL FROMMELT (Liechtenstein) said that Liechtenstein had followed the work of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons with great interest and thanked him for the report. The number of activities he had undertaken was impressive. Liechtenstein asked him to elaborate on the manual for lawmakers and politicians for the implementation of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement which would be published in the autumn of 2008. Liechtenstein also asked about the operational guidelines on human rights and natural disasters established in 2006 and on the conclusions of his report regarding the systematic difficulties which humanitarian workers faced when trying to access internally displaced persons. Liechtenstein asked if the Representative could provide an example of when these guidelines were successfully implemented.
RAJIVA WIJESINHA (Sri Lanka) welcomed the continuing concerns expressed on the situation in Sri Lanka. Having listened to the presentation of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Sri Lanka believed that his academic approach was appreciated but it felt that his references were sometimes left unchecked. Sri Lanka was particularly sorry that his follow-up report had been issued without prior consultations with the Government of Sri Lanka. This morning, Sri Lankan newspapers were full of excerpts of Mr. Alston’s report. His unresponsiveness to several communications was a further example of the slowness of United Nations democracy. Further, if the challenges in other countries like Afghanistan were understood, why were they still misunderstood with regard to Sri Lanka? Some of the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur in past reports had been very well received by the Government and Sri Lanka hoped that the spirit of collaboration would prevail.
MARIA LOURDES BONE (Uruguay) expressed thanks to the three Experts. Uruguay welcomed the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers which were of high calibre and drew attention to safeguarding. The report focused on the issue of easy access for disadvantaged groups to the justice system. Uruguay said that legal services had been available throughout the country free of charge for the past 40 years. Uruguay recommended that this point be included in the next report by the Special Rapporteur. Work had been done to remove obstacles to the access of justice, fair trial and due process in Uruguay.
BART OUVRY (Belgium) welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. Belgium was pleased to note that the Democratic Republic of the Congo was cooperating with the Special Rapporteur. Belgium noted with satisfaction that some of the recommendations, such as on a high council of judiciary, had been implemented. It also noted that a draft proposal to set up a committee on human rights was being considered. The comments on the limits on military jurisdiction were noted. Belgium supported effective justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Only effective justice could combat sexual violence and corruption. At the seventh regular session, the Human Rights Council had renewed its commitment to improve conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Belgium asked if Mr. Despouy had recommendations on follow up on this resolution of the Council. Belgium also welcomed the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons and asked how he planned to follow up on the resolutions of the seventh session of the Council regarding internally displaced persons.
ROBERT NOCELLA (Italy) said the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons provided a very comprehensive overview on activities and on missions undertaken to date. How did the Representative intend to enhance cooperation in the coming years with relevant stakeholders, especially with the Council of Europe? How would an independent monitoring mechanism for displaced persons that wished to return to their home concretely work? On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, could he elaborate more on his intention to carry out an in-depth examination of the impact of states of emergency on human rights?
ORSOLYA TOTH (Hungary) thanked the three Experts for their presentations. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, Hungary thanked him for participating in this dialogue. Hungary thanked Mr. Despouy for the important work he had carried out over the past year, specifically the report submitted on his visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo. One of the most significant achievements of the new Constitution was setting up the national council of magistrates. She stated that the law on the organization and functioning of this council had however not been adopted, and without it, the national council was not functional. Hungary re-stated a recommendation regarding the plan of action for the reconstruction of the judicial system in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and that it should be elaborated and implemented by the Ministry of Justice. Hungary asked if there was a possibility for the Special Rapporteur and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide technical assistance and expertise in this regard? Had such technical assistance been requested by the Democratic Republic of Congo? Hungary welcomed the preliminary observations contained in the Rapporteur’s press release about the visit to the Russian Federation, and looked forward to the report to the Council.
OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) presented Iraq’s condolences to the people of China and Myanmar. Iraq welcomed the reports of the three Experts. Iraq was interested in the mandate of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons because of the conflict and violence in the country. The Government was trying to play its role in encouraging the return of all the Iraqis who were displaced. All those operating outside the law would be brought to justice. More work was needed from neighbouring countries and international organizations. It was for this reason that a conference was needed to encourage more support and coordination between neighbouring countries and international organizations to help Iraqis inside and outside the country. Iraq reaffirmed its commitment to an independent judicial system. The judiciary simply applied the law. Iraq currently applied capital punishment, but hoped to end this practice. It hoped to obtain prosperity and peace in the country.
AKIO ISOMATA (Japan) said that, on the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, among the issues of particular importance referred to in the report, the issue regarding the role of national commissions of inquiry was of particular interest to Japan. Drawing upon 26 years’ experience in the study and analysis of commissions of inquiry, the report provided good guidance on how to assess their establishment. Japan shared the view of the Special Rapporteur that such commissions needed to be independent and impartial. Japan was interested in the situation in the Philippines. The number of extrajudicial executions had been decreasing since last year. The various measures implemented by the Philippines Government were encouraging and appreciated.
MICHEAL TIERNEY (Ireland) said that the thematic analysis by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on national commissions of inquiry was very helpful in flagging the common legal and practical issues that States were likely to encounter. His report highlighted the issue of non-cooperation as a serious impediment to the work of the Special Rapporteur, and pointed to examples of States refusing or failing to answer. Ireland asked what advice could the Special Rapporteur offer on how States might be encouraged to better engage with the mandate. The report emphasized the primacy of the criminal justice system and the problem of national inquiries being used to avoid accountability. Ireland asked if Mr. Alston agreed that perhaps national inquiries could play an important commentary role for issues wider than those involving traditional criminal justice. Mr. Alston’s report also suggested that a more active role be taken for international scrutiny of national inquiries by means of an international monitoring mechanism. Ireland asked if Mr. Alston could elaborate further upon the structure of such a mechanism.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said that Armenia had read carefully the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, Walter Kalin, in particular on his mission to Azerbaijan. Armenia recognised the work of Dr. Kalin and his deep understanding of the situation in the region, especially after his visit to Armenia last year. Armenia underlined the primary duty of national authorities in dealing with the rights and plights of displaced persons. The Armenian Government had taken on such duties without delay. Armenia noted that the report stated that the Government of Azerbaijan had given required attention to internally displaced persons. It noted that without a peaceful resolution to the conflict, the problem would continue. Armenia was committed to the peaceful and negotiated settlement of the conflict.
YURY GALA (Cuba) said that on the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Cuba believed that it was relevant that the report included a section on prisons run by prisoners. This phenomenon was often seen in developing countries and such situations often led to extrajudicial killings. Cuba wished to have a special section on the issue of the right to life that certain States did not respect in armed conflicts. Many people were killed because they were termed as enemy combatants. There was no control over such actions and impunity seemed to prevail. The Special Rapporteur should address this issue. On the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, access to justice was of vital importance. The right to a fair trial had declined in recent years, with several emergency courts and military courts being used in the frame of the fight against terrorism. In the case of the five Cubans who had been held unjustly for years in the United States, there was proof of political manipulation in the trials that had taken place in Miami. The Working Group on arbitrary detention had concluded that the rights of these individuals had been violated. The Special Rapporteur was asked to tackle these issues in his next report.
ABDUL GHAFOOR MOHAMED (Maldives) welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and attached great importance to the mandate and its extension. The Maldives had taken important steps towards the separation of powers and establishing credible institutions to strengthen the judiciary. Significant progress had been made in implementing the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations. One of the steps taken was the revision of the Constitution that once adopted would set up an Office of Prosecutor General. Further, the Maldives had also set-up a Supreme Court and a Judicial Service Commission. The Maldives was committed to strengthening the judiciary and the legal profession and the Government valued the recommendations made by Mr. Despouy. The Government of the Maldives also stated the great importance of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Procedures.
MARTIN IHOEGHIAN UHOMOIBHI (Nigeria) commended the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston. Nigeria had instituted a consistent policy of cooperation with Special Rapporteurs and encouraged regular visits from Special Procedures. It had had only two days to comment on the report. Nigeria welcomed the acknowledgement of Mr. Alston that Nigeria had made progress since 2005, especially in setting up inquiries to examine allegations of killings by police. On the issue of Sharia, practiced in 12 of 36 states, the Constitution clearly spelled out the relationship between State and Federal judicial systems. Press reports of executions under Sharia law were fabrications. No executions had taken place after death sentences had been passed. It was not correct that Nigeria imposed the death penalty for offences such as adultery and sodomy. Nigeria reaffirmed that it stood ready to engage with the United Nations.
MARCIA MARIA ADORNO C. RAMOS (Brazil) expressed it concerns over the death sentences elaborated by the High Criminal Court in Iraq. It was also important to conduct a thorough investigation and to create a group to look into the attack against the United Nations building in Baghdad in 2003. Brazil supported the recommendation made by the Special Rapporteur to investigate this heinous attack.
RICARDO R. BLANCAFLOR (Philippines) wished to bring the attention of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to two recent cases related to extrajudicial executions. In six months, 48 cases had been investigated and an army soldier had been arrested for killing a syndicate member. Another soldier had been implicated in another case. The Philippines respected the rule of law. The investigation team welcomed non-governmental organizations, civil society and the media to ensure the transparency of the process.
LIBERE BARARUNYERETSE, of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, said the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons had addressed important issues relevant to all countries, especially when dealing with internally displaced persons in the context of natural disasters. The Organisation valued the notion that concerned States should develop mastery of the relevant language in providing judicial services in minority languages, according to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. The Organisation noted the training taking place in Italy for the purpose of training judges and court officers from countries like Togo, Rwanda, the Central African Republic Côte D’Ivoire and Senegal, among others. The Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie was taking part. It welcomed the attention given by the Representative on internally displaced persons to the issue of internal displacement, especially in French speaking countries in Africa that had long been neglected because capacity building courses had only been available in English. The Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie was willing to raise awareness within its organization and among its membership.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that concerning the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Algeria was shocked by his systematic denunciation of national commissions of inquiry which he charged were responsible for providing impunity for those who carried out extrajudicial killings. This denunciation was done without taking into account the deep seated realties of countries. The Special Rapporteur had also proposed the creation of the mandate of a Special Rapporteur on the rights of detainees. But resolution 5/1 provided the possibility that the areas that were not covered by Special Procedures could be tackled by expanding already existing mandates. The rights of detainees were already taken into account in the frame by the Special Rapporteur on torture, the Working Group on arbitrary detention and the International Committee of the Red Cross. On the Special Rapporteur’s comments that the Council should consider the gaps that resulted from the fact that some countries were not answering requests for visits, Algeria underlined that he was not entitled to do so. The Code of Conduct of the Special Procedures stated that visits should be carried out with the consent of States
JUAN HOLGUIN (Ecuador) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Leandro Despouy for his presentation and reports which presented a wide range of issues and clear recommendations. Ecuador agreed with the opinion of the Special Rapporteur when he underlined that the objective of his mandate was to defend the independence of the judiciary and that his visits did not hamper in any way ongoing judicial processes nor existing judicial structures. In the case of Ecuador, the work of Mr. Despouy had contributed to the Constitution and the integration of the Supreme Court of Justice. With active and efficient action, the Special Rapporteur had helped Ecuador to overcome one of the most serious institutional crises in the country. Ecuador congratulated Mr. Despouy for his integrity, his objectivity and his impartiality in his functions as Special Rapporteur.
CECILIA R. V. QUISUMBING, of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, said that the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines was an accredited National Human Rights Institution. It expressed appreciation for the work and constructive comments of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, including his recognition of the role that non-state actors had played in extrajudicial killings. The Government of the Philippines had taken several steps to address the issue. It reached the same conclusions as Mr. Alston that no State policy existed in the Philippines that approved or encouraged these killings. But the Government was urged to increase its efforts to ensure that the killings be stopped. The rule of law must be respected. The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines had noted a drop in incidences and hoped that this trend would continue.
MICHAEL ANTHONY, of the Asian Legal Resource Centre, said, concerning Sri Lanka, there had been no related convictions of persons who carried out extrajudicial executions in the past few years. This had resulted in a grave prevalence of impunity. There was also a lack of witness protection. The Asian Legal Resource Centre shared the concerns of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions about the continuing impunity related to the extra-judicial killings that remained ongoing in the Philippines. There had also been cases of death in custody in the south of Thailand. No progress had been made in the investigation of these cases.
JEYABALAN CROSS, of Pax Romana, said that as a Catholic Priest of the Diocese of Mannar in Northern Sri Lanka, he wanted to tell the Council that war continued to rage, as it had for more than three decades between the Government Forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. He had witnessed numerous civilians getting caught in the crossfire. He spoke on behalf of the Mannar people where the daily reality had been destruction of property, curbs on vital fishing and farming, arbitrary arrests, torture, forced conscription, killings and disappearances. He sought the views of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on how to address these issues in line with international standards. He urged the Council to make these pleas its own and further address the urgent needs of the displaced in Mannar.
NIRAJ KUMAR PABARI, of North South XXI, expressed gratitude to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers for bringing attention to the situation of the judiciary in Iraq, especially the Iraqi Special Tribunal that continued to function in violation of international law. Many had condemned the work of the tribunal. North South XXI strongly supported the idea mentioned by the Special Rapporteur to create an expert mechanism on the rights of detainees. It asked Mr. Despouy what more must be done to end the tribunal and the human rights violations in Iraq. North South XXI noted that the approaches of the Special Rapporteur to the Government of Iraq had had little impact and asked what must be done to end the violation of human rights and the killings. Mandates must not stop at fine words; they must provide advice to end human rights violations.
DEIRDRE MCCONNELL, of Interfaith International, said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions provided an analysis of the reasons why national commissions of inquires set up to investigate killings had failed in several countries. Sri Lanka was a good example. More than 100 massacres of Tamil civilians had been committed by government forces. Sri Lanka had the highest number of disappearances in the world, according to the United Nations. Practically all the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations had been disregarded. Sri Lanka was a country which paradoxically used national commissions of inquiry to deflect criticism rather than address impunity. Since impunity was one of the contributing factors to the conflict situation, this was a very serious matter.
ISABELLE HEYER, of the Colombian Commission of Jurists, said that from July 2006 to June 2007, 230 extrajudicial execution cases in Colombia had been identified. The Colombian Commission of Jurists agreed with the recommendations on measures to combat impunity and to protect the right to life which were made by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. In connection with the case of 21 February 2005 where eight people were massacred, the public prosecutors office this year had ordered a number of soldiers to be convicted in connection with this case. The recommendations of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons further stressed the importance that Governments should align on this issue. There continued to be serious violations of the right to life in Colombia.
TENZIN S. KAYTA, of the Society for Threatened People, agreed with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers that indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups especially suffered institutionalized forms of criminalization of their activities, discrimination and miscarriage of justice. The Society for Threatened People wanted to raise the plight of lawyers in China. The Society then quoted the Special Rapporteur when he stated that he would welcome further information from China to ensure that lawyers were able to freely practice in China. The Society asked the Special Rapporteur how he was monitoring the situation.
PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International said that the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and his predecessors had often talked about military tribunals and their use to try civilians. This was incompatible with fair trial principles. Persons had the right to an impartial tribunal. A number of States continued to use military tribunals; the situation in Egypt was of particular concern. What were the views of the Special Rapporteur with regard to this situation?
STEWART WATTERS, of France Libertés – Fondation Danielle Mitterrand, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. France Libertes remained concerned about situations where, as a result of repressive government policies, there was a total absence of independent monitors, human rights defenders and/or independent civil society organizations. They were concerned by the extent to which such conditions had enabled acts of impunity by authoritarian regimes.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC08056E